Judgement

HEGDE, J. :- The main controversy in this appeal by certificate is as to the constitutional validity of Section 12A (4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 1946, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act. As in our judgment that provision is void, the same being violative of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution, we have not thought it necessary to examine the other contentions raised in the appeal.

2. The facts material for the purpose of deciding the question formulated above, are these: The appellants are dealers registered under the Act carrying on business in art silk, cotton and handloom cloth. During, the period January 26, 1950 to March 31, 1950, the appellants effected various sales outside the State of Bombay. As those sales were protected by Article 286 (1) (a) of the Constitution, they were outside the reach of the Act. But yet the sales tax officer assessed the turnover relating to those sales. The tax levied in respect of that turnover was Rs. 4,494-3-9. In appeal, the order of the sales tax Officer was affirmed by the Assistant Collector of sales tax. But the Additional Collector of sales tax, in revision revised the levy to some extent and ordered a refund of Rs. 2,238-0-6. That amount was paid to the assessees. Not being satisfied with the order of the Additional Collector of sales tax, the appellants took up the matter in revision to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. But even before they moved the tribunal in revision, the Additional Collector of sales tax by his letter dated May 17, 1958, informed the appellants that unless they furnished to the sales tax Officer proof of their having refunded the amount Paid to them in pursuance of his order to the purchasers within a period of three months from the date of that notice, the same would be liable to be forfeited under Section 12A (4). The tribunal by its order dated November 26, 1958, allowed the claim of the appellants in full and directed the refund of an additional sum of Rs. 2,256-2-6.

3. During the period April 1, 1950 to March 31, 1951 the appellants effected various sales outside the State of Bombay. The turnover relating to those sales was also brought to tax by the sales tax Officer and in that connection a tax of Rs. 23,806-3-6 was levied on the appellants. In appeal, the assistant collector of sales tax allowed the appellants claim in part alla ordered a refund of Rs. 12,154-15-0 but at the same time he informed them that that amount would be forfeited to the State Government if not refunded to the purchasers from whom the same had been collected. Not being satisfied with the relief obtained, the appellants went up in revision to the additional collector of sales tax. That officer by his order dated November 1, 1958 granted further relief by ordering refund of an additional sum of Rs. 3,588-1-9. But the sales tax officer did not give effect to that order. As the additional collector did not accept the appellants claim in full, they went up in revision to the tribunal. The tribunal allowed their claim in full. The Revenue took up the matter in reference to the High Court but that reference was rejected. From the foregoing it is seen that in respect of the period April 1, 1950 to March 31, 1951, the appellants are entitled to get a refund of Rs. 23,806-3-6 Despite the aforementioned orders, the sales tax officer did not pay the amounts ordered to be refunded. On the other hand, he threatened to take steps to forfeit the same by having recourse to Section 12A (4).

4. On June 27, 1962, the sales tax Officer called upon the assessees to remain present in their office on July 2, 1962 with particulars of the amount collected by them by way of sales tax from the purchasers in other States during the period January 26, 1950 to March 31, 1951. At that stage, the appellants approached the High Court of Gujarat by special civil application No. 641 of 1962 under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that application, they prayed for several reliefs, the most impo